Sunday, March 28, 2010

That's what I see when I look at the Tea Party phenomenon. An older generation of white people is seeing their country turn brown before their eyes -- and it makes them act bat-shit crazy. We've been there -- and California is well on its way to moving beyond this stage. Let's look at what seems obvious from here on the Left Coast

This year, for the first time in U.S. history, more babies in this country who are not white will be born than babies who are white. In California in 1979, the majority of the children in the public schools shifted from white to non-white. By 2042, the whole country will be majority "non-white" (unless we agree to change the definition of "white" again as the country has in the past.) California passed that "tipping point" in 2001. (I refuse to use the language "majority minority" to describe whites losing our numerical dominance -- it's too crazy making itself.)

Charles Blow described what's going on for people astonished and frightened by these realities who respond by "wanting their country back":

The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

In California, there was lots of race-based sputtering about the new demographics as they became visible in the 80s and 90s. But there was also an effective pushback from the Republican Right that used their remaining demographic advantage -- older whites were still a larger fraction of the voting electorate than they were in the general population -- to create structural barriers to the participation by the new majority. First they broke the state's ability to raise revenue by populist anti-tax initiatives (Prop. 13 and subsequent). The state's current bankruptcy is a result of the super-majority requirement for legislative votes on budgeting and taxes, also a product of this era. Then they straight up attacked the provision of social services to immigrants (Prop. 187, 1994) and state affirmative action programs (Prop. 209, 1996) by successful initiatives. Immigrant residents responded by rushing to complete their citizenship process, while Latinos turned firmly to the Democrats (not always champions of the new diversity, but better than the Republicans.)

The consequence of these right-wing, white supremacist populist eruptions in California has been to turn the state firmly into a Democratic stronghold. Aside from Hollywood phenom Governator Arnold (current job approval around 22 percent) for the last decade we have elected Democrats statewide. The California electorate has gone from being 83 percent white in 1978 to 65 percent white in 2009 (Field Poll publication pdf); Latinos are now 21 percent of the registered, Blacks 5.8 percent, and persons of various Asian origins 8.2 percent. As long as about half of the dwindling (as a percentage) white population votes for Democrats, and younger people and liberals do quite happily, Democrats win in this state.

The vicious nativism of the 90s has driven people of color into the Democratic camp who might not otherwise have wanted to be part of that big tent. But the tent of Minute Men and anti-immigrant vigilantes wasn't ever going to work for them. Even ordinary state Republicans seem to have an inkling that promoting hate against brown and black people is Party suicide. This week flailing Republican gubernatorial hopeful Steve Poizner accused the front-runner Meg Whitman of being soft on illegal immigrants. The Los Angeles Times noted in some amazement that Poizner's attack got little traction even among the Republican base:

Every so often, change can be seen not in what does happen but in what does not.

Those of us involved in trying to stem the rising tide of racism in California in the 90s are happily amazed by this development.

The era of white backlash here in California may be on the way out, but the rest of the country is just getting started. It's important to understand that, in California, the older white voters who were losing control were willing to burn down the house as they retreated into the minority.

California once had some of the best public schools in the country. Today, because Republicans have created structural gridlock in the legislature, wealthy California spends less per pupil than any other state, even very poor places like Mississippi and Louisiana. The California public university system used to be the best public system in the country and a nationwide magnet for bright young people; this year even Gov. Schwarzenegger bemoaned the fact that we spend 11 percent of our general fund on prisons and only 7.5 percent on higher education. Got to lock up those scary dark people; forget educating their kids! This is what you get when backlash gets built into the structure of government.

And this is what the Tea Party types would do, anywhere they are able. Preventing Californication is a fight for the national future. The worst dangers are what amount to structural I.E.D.s planted along the way, procedural rules that prevent the emerging majority from governing. The last year has made it obvious that the Senate functions as a locus of egotistical reaction. This is not only about Republicans' refusal to allow majority votes to pass legislation (the filibuster), it is also about simply not letting the administration to fill important government jobs by refusing to vote on nominees. (Good to see the President making recess appointments this weekend!)

But Californication of the whole country is not a necessary outcome of this moment of racial anxiety and California itself shows it. This will pass. For most people, if the sky doesn't fall as demographic change progresses, fear will abate. And the number of people who can live with the new realities will increase.

We are fortunate to have a federal government under the leadership of people who exemplify the shift to the new reality (even if not as much as those of us on the left would wish they did!) This demographic transition could be worse; it certainly was under Bush and the neocons. We all need a Democratic party government to succeed as much as possible in restoring prosperity and, if possible, increasing equity, even if only marginally. We need to keep the Republicans, the party that daily chooses to represent the fearful past, out of office -- and then we need to push the Democrats we elect to do better. The nation does not have to sink into California-style dysfunction, but it is going to be a fight.

5 comments:

Oh JAN I am so grateful for this post. The memorial svce for Monsenor Romero made me so depressed... So much violence and injustice and inequality growing continually all around the world, so hard to feel any sense of progress, and our own govt so much a part of the problem... Militarism and Oligarchy R Us... Anyway, I appreciate your tough but optimistic perspective. Thank you! HH

This morning's paper carried the news of yet another white bigot with an idea. We should change the law that allows any child born in the U. S. to become an automatic citizen. According to this troglodyte babies born to illegal immigrants should not have citizenship status.

Darlene: Denying citizenship to children born to parents in the United States without papers comes up every once in a while. Citizenship based on place of birth within the United States is part of the Constitution, spelled out in the 14th amendment. It had to be included because -- guess what? -- otherwise some troglodytes were arguing that freed Black slaves were not citizens, however much some might wish it were.

There's a familiar theme there. Citizenship is not a prerogative of white people.

What's this blog about?

My musings on current events, current projects, current anxieties and current delights.

I started this under the Bush regime when any grain of sand thrown into the gears of the over-reaching imperial state seemed worthwhile.

I have worked to elect more and better Democrats -- and to hammer the shit out of them once we get them in office so they do the things their constituents want and need. It's a big job.

I have endured the dashed potential for a more transformational regime under Obama. The man has made himself an accomplice in the imperial crimes of his predecessor as well as committing his own. He has also almost certainly been the most progressive president most of us will live to see. I fear we'll look back on his years in office with mild gratitude for a respite from national leadership that was habitually stupid and vicious, as well as wrong.

Visitors here will find a lot of commentary on books I'm reading. I am very intentionally reading intensively offline these days. When it feels hard to find direction, it's time to learn something new.

Now available

About Me

I'm a progressive political activist who runs trails and climbs mountains whenever any are available. I've had the privilege to work for justice in Central America (Nicaragua and El Salvador), in South Africa, in the fields of California with the United Farmworkers Union, and in the cities and schools of my own country. I'm a Christian of the Episcopalian flavor; we think and argue a lot. For work, I've done a bit of it all: run an old fashioned switch-board; remodeled buildings and poured concrete; edited and published periodicals, reports and books; and organized for electoral campaigns. I am currently an independent consultant to organizations seeking "help when you have to make a fight."